Connect with us

Opinion

Budget 2019 – Poor wording requires 2 ex-spouses within 5 years for Home Buyers Plan

Published

6 minute read

This is one of those rare times I hope I am wrong in my interpretation, and look forward to being proven wrong by my professional colleagues.

On March 19, 2019 the federal government tabled its election-year budget. One of the newest and strangest provisions is the ability for people going through a separation or divorce to potentially have access to their RRSP under the Home Buyers Plan.

Now in my article and podcast entitled: “Escape Room – The NEW Small Business Tax Game – Family Edition” with respect to the Tax On Split Income (TOSI) rules, I made a tongue in cheek argument that people will be better off if they split, because then the TOSI rules won’t apply.

In keeping with the divorce theme, beginning in the year of hindsight, 2020, the federal government is giving you an incentive to split up and get your own place.

However, there are a few hoops:

On page 402 of the budget, under new paragraph 146.01(2.1)(a), at the time of your RRSP withdrawal under the Home Buyers Plan, you must make sure that:

  • – the home you are buying is not the current home you are living in and you are disposing of the interest in the current home within two years; or
  • – you are buying out your former spouse in your current home; and

you need to:

  • be living separate and apart from your spouse or common-law partner;
  • have been living separate and apart for a period of at least 90 days (markdown October 3, 2019 on the calendar),
  • began living separate and apart from your spouse or common-law partner, this year, or any time in the previous 4 years (ok, you don’t have to wait for October); and…

…here is where the tabled proposed legislation gets messy.

Proposed subparagraph 146.01(2.1)(a)(ii) refers to where the individual

  • wouldn’t be entitled to the home buyers plan because of living with a previous spouse in the past 4 years that isn’t the current spouse they are separating from

“(ii) in the absence of this subsection, the individual would not have a regular eligible amount because of the application of paragraph (f) of that definition in respect of a spouse or common-law partner other than the spouse referred to in clauses (i)(A) to (C), and…”

The problem with the wording of this provision, is that it is written in the affirmative by the legislators using the word ā€œandā€. This means, you must be able to answer ā€œtrueā€ to all the tests for the entire paragraph to apply.

The way I read this, the only way to answer ā€œtrueā€ to this subparagraph is if you have a second spouse (ie: spouse other than the spouse referred to) that you shared a home with and you split from in the past four years.

If you have a second spouse that you shared a home with in the past four years, then ā€œparagraph (f)ā€ in the definition of ā€œregular eligible amountā€ would apply and the answer would be ā€œtrueā€.

If the answer is “true” you can then get access to your RRSP Home Buyers Plan.

If you don’t have a second spouse then, even though “paragraph (f)” might be met, the phrase ā€œspouse other than the spouse referred toā€ would not be met, and therefore the answer would be ā€œfalseā€.

This would, in turn, cause the entire logic test of the provision to be ā€œfalseā€ and so you would not be able to take out a ā€œregular eligible amountā€ from your RRSP for the Home Buyers plan because you do not meet the provisions.

If my interpretation is correct then I would really be curious as to what part of the economy they are trying to stimulate.

In my opinion the legislation could be fixed with a simple edit:

“(ii) in the absence of this subsection, the individual would not have a regular eligible amount because of the application of paragraph (f) of that definition in respect of:

(A) a spouse or common-law partner; or

(B) a spouse or common-law partner other than the spouse referred to in clauses (i)(A) to (C); and…”


Cory G. Litzenberger, CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr is the President & Founder of CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors; you can find out more about Cory’s biography at http://www.CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html

CEO | Director CGL Tax Professional Corporation With the Income Tax Act always by his side on his smart-phone, Cory has taken tax-nerd to a whole other level. His background in strategic planning, tax-efficient corporate reorganizations, business management, and financial planning bring a well-rounded approach to assist private corporations and their owners increase their wealth through the strategies that work best for them. An entrepreneur himself, Cory started CGL with the idea that he wanted to help clients adapt to the ever-changing tax and economic environment and increase their wealth through optimizing the use of tax legislation coupled with strategic business planning and financial analysis. His relaxed blue-collar approach in a traditionally white-collar industry can raise a few eyebrows, but in his own words: ā€œPeople don’t pay me for my looks. My modeling career ended at birth.ā€ More info: https://CGLtax.ca/Litzenberger-Cory.html

Follow Author

Business

Carney should rethink ā€˜carbon capture’ climate cure

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

In case you missed it amid the din of Trump’s trade war, Prime Minister Carney is a bigĀ believerĀ in ā€œcarbon capture and storage.ā€ And his energy minister, Tim Hodgson, whoĀ saidĀ it’s ā€œcritical to build carbon capture systems for the oilsands,ā€ wants the Smith government and oilsands companies to get behind a proposedĀ projectĀ (which hasn’t been unable to raise sufficient private investment) in Cold Lake, Alberta.

The term ā€œcarbon capture and storageā€ (or CCS) essentially refers to technology that separates carbon dioxide (CO2) from emissions and either stores it or uses it for other products. Proponents claim that CCS could replace other more ham-handed climate regulations such as carbon taxes, emission caps, etc. The problem is, like many (or most) proposed climate panaceas, CCS is oversold. While it’s a real technology currently in use around the world (primarily to produce more oil and gas from depleting reservoirs), jurisdictions will likely be unable to affordably scale up CCS enough to capture and store enough greenhouse gas to meaningfully reduce the risks of predicted climate change.

Why? Because while you get energy out of converting methane (natural gas) to CO2 by burning it in a power plant to generate electricity, you have to put quite a lot of energy into the process if you want to capture, compress, transport and store the attendant CO2 emissions. Again, carbon capture can be profitable (on net) for use in producing more oil and gas from depleting reservoirs, and it has a long and respected role in oil and gas production, but it’s unclear that the technology has utility outside of private for-profit use.

And in fact, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), most CCS happening in Canada is less about storing carbon to avert climate change and more about stimulating oil production from existing operations. While there are ā€œseven CCS projects currently operating in Canada, mostly in the oil and gas sector, capturing about 0.5% of national emissions,ā€ CCS in oil and gas production does not address emissions from ā€œdownstream uses of those fuelsā€ and will, perversely, lead to more CO2 emissions on net. The IISD also notes that CCS is expensive, costing up to C$200 per tonne for current projects. (ForĀ reference, today’s government-set minimum carbon market price to emit a tonne of CO2 emissions is C$95.) IISD concludes CCS is ā€œenergy intensive, slow to implement, and unproven at scale, making it a poor strategy for decarbonizing oil and gas production.ā€

Another article inĀ Scientific AmericanĀ observes that industrial carbon capture projects are ā€œtoo small to matterā€ and that ā€œtoday’s largest carbon capture projects only remove a few seconds’ worth of our yearly greenhouse gas emissionsā€ and that this is ā€œcosting thousands of dollars for every ton of CO2 removed.ā€ And as a way to capture massive volumes of CO2 (from industrial emission streams of out the air) and sequestering it to forestall atmospheric warming (climate change), the prospects are not good. Perhaps this is why the article’s author characterizes CCS as a ā€œfigleafā€ for the fossil fuel industry (and now, apparently, the Carney government) to pretend they are reducing GHG emissions.

Prime Minister Carney should sharpen his thinking on CCS. While real and profitable when used in oil and gas production, it’s unlikely to be useful in combatting climate change. Best to avoid yet another costly climate change ā€œsolutionā€ that is overpromised, overpriced and has historically underperformed.

Kenneth P. Green

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Energy

Is Carney ‘All Hat And No Cattle’?

Published on

From the National Citizens Coalition

By National Citizens Coalition President Peter Coleman

Mark Carney promised to lead Canada with bold vision and economic strength. But his latest stall tactics on removing red tape for Canadian oil and gas, his floundering in tariff negotiations despite lofty “elbows up” promises, and his refusal to address shocking interference allegations tied to his public safety minister so far show that he’sĀ all hat and no cattle.

Today, Prime Minister Mark Carney held consultations and conversations with Indigenous groups on Bill C-5, which claims to fast-track ā€œnation-buildingā€ energy projects. Yet he announced no major approvals on the horizon, and impressed no urgency or authority upon those in attendance who would seek to claim veto over vital projects.

Canada doesn’t need more endless talk or one bill to pick more losers than winners.Ā We need action to remove anti-resource laws and regulatory roadblocks that choke our energy sector. Projects like pipelines and LNG facilities are critical for jobs, economic growth, and energy security, but they’re stalled by bureaucratic overreach and outdated policies. Hard-working Canadians deserve affordable energy. Our economy needs rescuing from tariff threat and a decade of Liberal sabotage. AndĀ Indigenous communities deserve real economic partnerships, not more delays and cowardly half-measures that often only placate anti-resource interests and insiders, not the real needs of the community.

Streamlined approvals with clear economic benefits will unlock prosperity for all Canadians. Carney’s stall tactics only hold back progress. It’s time to cut the red tape and get out of the way so that real Canadian leaders, and our great Canadian workers, can rebuild Canada after all that’s been broken.

Carney campaigned as the economic genius who could handle U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariff threats. Yet, with Trump’s August 1 deadline for a 35% tariff on Canadian goods approaching, Carney’s negotiations are going nowhere. His vague promises do nothing to protect Canadian jobs, industries, or families facing higher costs. Canadians deserve a leader who delivers results, not one who breaks campaign promises with empty rhetoric.

Meanwhile, he’s been shielding corruption and dodging accountability. Carney, now revealed to have 16 pages of conflicts that were kept from voters during the election,Ā continues to protect Public Safety Minister Gary Anandasangaree, who faces serious allegations of lobbying for those with listed terrorist ties. Instead of demanding transparency, Carney is shielding his minister from scrutiny, doubling down on the Liberal tradition of dodging accountability. Canadians deserve a government that upholds integrity, not one that buries troubling connections to protect political allies. Is Carney just like Justin, who broke immigration and invited rampant foreign interference into government? Because this response is right out of his predecessor’s playbook.

Mark Carney’s leadership has been all talk and no action. Canada needs a government that unleashes our energy potential, lives up to its lofty campaign promises, and roots out corruption; not another Justin Trudeau.

We’re not falling for it. And neither are you. Demand action. Demand results.

Carney’s delays and cover-ups are holding Canada back. Chip in today to support our fight for energy development, economic strength, and accountability in Ottawa! Click here to donate.

Peter Coleman, President, National Citizens Coalition

Continue Reading

Trending

X